The case against Jim Vance & Sylvia Allen

[Arizona Freedom Alliance]

Some of you have been keeping tabs on what is happening in Navajo County since AZGOP Chairman arbitrarily snatched the Navajo County Republican Committee away from the duly elected officers and gave it to Sen. Sylvia Allen.  Chairman Steven Slaton decided to fight for what he thinks is right.  Far too often, we as Republicans just roll over and play dead so as not to be labeled "controversial."  It's because of that fear or because Republicans are very polite as a rule that we get rolled all too often.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Republicans of Navajo County

Once again Slimy Sylvia Allen and Jimmy Vance, of the Navajo County Republicans Club are portraying themselves as the Navajo County Republican Committee.  Their continuing lying acts as if they are the official NCRC and is shameless.

Folks these people are people who do not, nor will, follow the rule of law with Slimy Sylvia  Senator Allen behind these people.

Steven Slaton the official Chairman of the Navajo County Republican Committee along with the executive committee has filed a civil law suit against Jimmy Vance and the others. Jimmy Vance as well admitted in an e-mail that they didn't follow the Rule of Law!

These people are so incompetent they also stole our logo that we used, and developed. I attached the civil suit front page.

If anyone would like a copy of the law suit, contact Chairman Slaton. It’s completely laid out on Slimy Sylvia Allen and Jimmy Vance’s illegally trying to take over the NCRC by violating State Statues and NCRC Bylaws.

These people have no respect for the RULE OF LAW!  Slimy Sylvia Allen is a liar. We'll have more coming out on her which will expose the lying Senator Allen!

Hopefully you folks will denounce Jimmy Vance and Sylvia Allen for their lying to you along with their illegal actions.

Steven Slaton

Chairman

NAVAJO COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE

~~~~~~~~

[For no reason that we can prove, Wells Fargo, who held the NCRC funds, handed those funds over to Jim Vance, the rogue "chairman" of the stolen organization] Steve Slaton: "Wells Fargo sent our NCRC funds to the Fake NCRC. They told us they would wait for the hearing outcome. They Lied."  [There was a hearing set to take place but WF transferred the funds even before the hearing took place.]

~~~~~~~~~

This is the latest update:

The Commission on Judicial Conduct has opened an investigation case on the miss-conduct of Judge pro-tem David Martin.

Navajo County Chairman Steven Slaton filed a complaint with the Arizona Supreme Court on the case against Jim Vance and others on there Illegal Taking of control and monies of the Navajo County Republican Committee. 

The Superior court of Navajo County never notified Mr. Slaton on the judge. Pro tem Judges, if assigned, have to be given consent by both parties. This did not happen. 

Also a Complaint is being filed with the Arizona State Attorney General Office on the failure of the clerk of the court not notifying Mr. Slaton on the Judge as well after many attempts by Mr. Slaton to find out who was the assigned Judge. Mr. Slaton found out through the (news)paper. Mr. Slaton does have witness in the failure of the clerks office of Navajo County.

We'll keep you posted.

Steve Slaton

Chairman NCRC

[Bruce M Piepho]

By-laws serve as the contract with private club members.  The AZGOP is a political private club.  The AZGOP by-laws provide the rules for membership.  A state committeeman sworn in joins the private political party club.

A political private club because of the political nature is subject to the A.R.S.  The AZGOP by-laws and the A.R.S. serve as the basis for the "rule of law" as Slaton likes to say.  I agree with him. 

Since the by-laws are a contract - who broke the law?

Did Slaton break the by-law contract with a change from elected to appointed Treasurer and Secretary with the consequence the NCRC by-laws now are not in compliance with the AZGOP By-laws??

Or did Vance break the by-law contract by calling a PC meeting outside the structure of the four meetings definition in the by-laws?

People - read the by-laws.  Slaton et.al. may prevail if he gets the case into a court of contract law.  The family lawyer appointed Judge dismissed the plaintiffs case on several grounds.  In other words he rejected the case.  Ever hear of a Supreme Court or other court refusing to take up a case? 

People again - read the by-laws and then the Defendants motion to dismiss.

[Bruce M Piepho]

Patricia - You might want to read the NCRC by-laws and then re-think your perspective on a power grab by who - Vance or Slaton?

[Patricia Gillenwater]

Will do Bruce. I am always suspicious when it appears on the surface that the state GOP has intention to direct and control the GOP's in the local.

[Jaspersgoat]

I am going to wade in here despite not knowing any of the players.   However, I have been involved in party officer changes.  Bruce explains that the Secretary was appointed.  With all due respect, the same situation happened in an LD I attended.  Once the Secretary or any officer is "appointed" and takes the job, it is the same if that person was elected.   In the situation to which I was witness, one of the PCs did not want the board to have an odd number of members because they wanted to block an appointment.  One of the board members had been appointed months earlier and they tried to claim that person did not have a vote on the board.  It took a parliamentarian to step in and tell the LDs that the person was agreed to by the rest of the board at the time and therefor it was a tacit "election."  RONR came into play if I remember correctly.  So whether the secretary was appointed or elected along with the rest of the board is immaterial.

[Bruce M Piepho]

Vance did not ignore or disregard the NCRC by-laws. He did not believe an appointed secretary would issue the call letter.  If he had called for a Special Meeting the concern was the call letter not being issued. If the appointed secretary did not comply, then proceed with officer removal at any time at any meeting at any place.

People need to read the details in the NCRC By-laws.

The NCRC by-laws adopted January 5, 2017 are not in compliance with the AZGOP by-laws. There are many reasons for an update to the NCRC by-laws. Most important - the Treasurer and Secretary must be elected.

Jill Skaufel in a note to me stated:

“In the NCRC Bylaws 2017 that Steve Slaton passed, there are major conflicts with the AZGOP Bylaws. The NCRC Bylaws clearly provide that: These Bylaws apply to the NCRC and may not conflict with the Continuing Bylaws of the Arizona Republican Party.

Slaton changed the Bylaws to describe the Statutory Elected Officers of Treasurer and Secretary as Appointed Officers (by him). He designated First Vice Chairman and Second Vice-Chairman to be Statutory Elected Officers. I do not think he understands the word ‘Statutory’. That is not only in conflict with AZGOP Bylaws but also state statute.

Since the Secretary and Treasurer were not elected PCs but appointed by Steve, he could terminate them at any time. Why would he do that? Well, when his appointed Treasurer stepped out of line because he had a different opinion than Steve, Steve terminated him and made it headline news in the local paper. I suppose this was an attempt by Steve to humiliate the treasurer and intimidate anyone else who might disagree with him.

Surely those positions are to be elected so that the only way they could be removed would be by a 2/3 vote of the committee, not the decision of one man. In Slaton’s NCRC, the only elected officers of the executive committee were Chairman Steve Slaton, VC Karen MacKean and 2^nd VC Paul Corathers.  All other officers were appointed by Steve and could be terminated at any time.”

PCs need the recourse to remove a secretary, if he/she do not call a meeting as directed in the by-laws. NCRC by-laws also need revision of meeting quorum requirements as well as better specifically stating the procedure for office removal.

[Jaspersgoat]

That is just way too many "ifs"  What should have been done is for Vance to submit the request to the Secretary.  THEN if she refused to send the Call, he could perhaps have acted.  He just decided on his own and with Allen, it sounds like, to do whatever they wanted.  We can't decide which of the Bylaws we want to follow based on an opinion as to whether someone else might not follow them.  Vance clearly did not follow them but he was worried that the secretary wouldn't follow them?  Sounds like he was worried that the secretary would  act like him.  That makes a lot of sense. ;-( He's WRONG!  Further, the Bylaws were the Bylaws whether they were in compliance with AZGOP or not.  AZGOP's bylaws stink as we all know and are not in compliance with much common sense or most of the RRs.  But it doesn't matter.  The Chair does not "pass" bylaws.  The body of the Committee does that.  If one doesn't like the Bylaws, amend them but until they are amended, they are the Bylaws.  Roberts Rules puts the weight of behavior firmly on the organizations Bylaws and no where in RRS does it say just ignore what you don't like.  Jill is WRONG and making excuses for what seems to clearly be fake reasoning.  From all I have read along the way, I put the weight of misbehavior on Vance and Allen along with Lines who, I understand, never contacted Slaton to get the other side of the story.  That is the first thing he should have done but let's be clear, Lines is only a place keeper Chairman.  He has no idea what he's doing.

[Jaspersgoat]

Excuse me for getting all worked up over this since I know these people only by what I've read and heard about them.  But I smell miscarriage and I really think we need to stand up for others being jerked around bc the next one being jerked around might be us.  What bank knows there is a hearing coming on the disposition of the money but gives it away before the hearing is even held?  I bet someone's relative works at that bank.  Maybe that is why they are being fined Billions for misdeeds.

And one more thing - Bruce, you say Slaton is not free of mistakes or fault or whatever.  Please tell me who in this saga is free of fault.  Or in life, when I think about it. We all make mistakes. We should be give the option to work it out.

[Bruce M Piepho]

I spent over 10 years as bank examiner for the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and then as a Certified Information Systems Auditor for First Bank System, a bank holding company.

That all said - the bank account has a signed agreement - an account binding contract. We do not know the contents of that and there may be no requirement other than to change the signatory card or stamen for withdrawal/deposit authority to newly elected NCRC officers. 

Maybe Wells Fargo only requires proof of being an elected.  We do not know as we do not have a copy of the bank agreement.  Change of ownership normally does not go through a court proceeding.  Did Slaton et.al. secure a court order to freeze the account? Don't know.

As to mistakes - yes I believe Slaton made mistakes.  Yes I believe Vance made mistakes.  Yes we all make mistakes.  Yes they do have the option to work it out.  I make no judgements.

[Jaspersgoat]

You are right on all points, Bruce.  Customarily, banks require someone who is already a signatory on an account in order to hand it over to someone new.  Otherwise, I could go into any bank holding an account whose # I know and confiscate the account.  Or perhaps a notarized document from someone who was on the account.  Otherwise, the bank could be sued and maybe that is what Slaton did.  There was clearly a "hearing" scheduled over who owns the account.  Maybe you read recently the brou haha over the AZRA account where the same thing happened.  Maybe that account was at WF or maybe banks are just careless these days.  There is probably a reason WF is in trouble with the bank examiners.  Slaton should have frozen the account immediately.  Big mistake not to.

[Bruce M Piepho]

Jaspergoat - I have contacted both the Vance Group and the Slaton group.  Have you read the NCRC by-laws?  Slaton did not unilaterally change the by-laws.  The chair moved the 1/5/2017 through a voting process by the body of the committee.  He wanted to control both the Treasurer and the Secretary.  Many of the PCs through 2017 became disgruntled with the Chair.  A few expressed lack of understanding the by-law changes and the Roberts Rules of order.  RRO is an easy way to over come the mis-steps of a chair. Especially when a parliamentarian is available at the meetings.

Jill is not wrong and I agree with her.  The Vance group decided to call their own meeting as they (at least claim so) did not trust the appointed secretary to perform her duties.  I agree with you Jaspergoat - go through the secretary first.  No call letter then do what Vance did send notice of a meeting by certified or registered letter.

How do you or would you interpret the underlined part in - Removal of Officers.

An Elected Officer of the NCRC may be removed at any time by a vote to that effect by three quarters (¾) of the Voting Members of the NCRC, but may not be removed at a Special Meeting unless the proposed removal is set forth in the call of the Special Meeting as one of the items of business for such meeting. Appointed officers serve at the discretion of the County Chairman and may be removed at any time without notice.

The chair getting a Special Meeting call letter from the secretary, according to the above quote of the NCRC by-laws, that is to remove him could remove the secretary without notice.

[Jaspersgoat]

Bruce, my opinion is that we are often at a threshhold where we have an avenue to do something. We have a responsibility to consider the consequences of the action we contemplate.  As a friend of mine often says, just because we CAN do something doesn't mean we SHOULD do it.  With rights go responsibilities.  It's just my feeling that this was handled all wrong by AZGOP and Allen and could have had a better outcome if they had just sat down and worked this out.  You seem to excuse the failings of the Vance guy but give Slaton no quarter.  I'm sure you will correct me if I have misinterpreted things.  I don't know what the problem was between the two groups but wresting away a chairmanship by a bully chairman is no small thing, especially given the history of the past two chairmen who have a talent of doing all the wrong things in all the wrong ways.  I agree with Tom Morrissey who said he would not have done this.  Neither would I have done this the way it was done.  Process matters more than the outcome.

Vance did not have any right to make assumptions. He can't squawk that Slaton did something wrong when he, himself, admits to having done something wrong by failure to adhere to the bylaws. this forum cannot determine whether the bylaws were right or wrong, they WERE VOTED ON by the body and everyone who is a PC in that district had a right and a responsibility to go to the meeting and VOTE.    As to your pointing out the language about "appointed" officers, it seems to read that the chairman can appoint and the chairman can remove since no other way to remove is mentioned. It doesn't seem to say "can be removed by the AZGOP Chairman, a PC or a Senator."

I feel I have beaten this horse until it's dead and have nothing left to say.  I hope it all works out. It's these kinds of heists that make most of us hate the republican party nearly as much as the dem party.

[Bruce M Piepho]

Jaspergoat – we are in more agreement than you might think. This was handled all wrong by both the Slaton group and the Vance group. No I do not excuse the failings of the Vance group and initially stood very solid in support of the Slaton group. Slaton was elected in December 2016 and initiated the 1/5/2017 by-laws approved by the PCs. The by-laws do not require an officer removal proceeding be at a statutory, mandatory, monthly or special PC called meting. Apparently based on complaints, Slaton as a chairman used bully tactics. There is something to be place heavy weight in deciding who is more right than wrong. The PC plurality was 77% to remove Slaton. I also agree with Tom Morrissey who said he would not have done this. I am better conversant in Roberts Rules of Order and I am very familiar with by-laws as the AZGOP and NCRC currently exist and how by-laws should be.

Both Vance and Slaton were wrong and two wrongs do not come close to a right. A court will have to decide who is right or wrong, if a court can be found as the struggle is in a private political club. Only contract law applies is the result I found by a google search.

You seemed to miss the appointed officer aspect. I pretty sure A.R.S. requires elected Treasure and Secretary but both are specified to be elected in the AZGOP by-laws. The NCRC are not in compliance for good reason. An elected secretary must be completely independent so as not to be coerced in matters such as a special meeting call letter. No officers of fiduciary or compliance responsibilities should be "appointed" officers service at the pleasure of any chairman. AZGOP by-laws state:

"Article IV— OFFICERS

A. List of Officers and Terms of Office
1. Statutory Elective Officers
Chairman, secretary, and treasurer: two-year terms beginning and ending at statutory organizational meeting."